When Tom Robinson has to task the stand Mr. Gilmer starts badgering him by asking him very critical questions and not giving him time to answer which is also not allowed in court. Also he starts to bring up irrelevant facts such as why he was running if he has nothing to hide, and even though Tom Robinson gave him a relevant answer it still makes him look suspicious and like there is more to the case than was already stated, which there wasn’t. To sum everything up, this piece of evidence shows that the people around did not treat him as a person being tried should be and it greatly affected the jury’s
§§ 2601, et seq. ), EXCEPT which of the following? To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the employee has to show all of the following except which one: John Smith was assaulted on the loading dock by a coworker, Jim Jones, at the Acme Widget Company. The attack was unprovoked by Smith. After the physical assault, there was an angry verbal exchange between the parties.
The plaintiff appealed the decision on 3/30/2001 on the grounds that the trial court erred in their decision, basing it on the fact that no one had been apprehended and confessed to the crime. 4. The plaintiff did not recover anything in this case. 5. The court decided this case based upon previous cases of Connelly v. Family Inns of America and Kottlowski v. Bridgestone/Firestone and felt that the defendant did not act in willfully negligent manner and that the plaintiff should have locked his toolbox is he was concerned about the safety and keeping of his tools?
The second fact was, “Mayela Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led almost exclusively with his left”. He had Mr. Ewell write out his name simply to make the point that he was a lefty. Although he took it as he was being mocked when Atticus asked him to write out his name for the Jury. He also pointed out, “Tom Robinson now sits before you having taken oath with the only good hand he possesses – his right hand.” Tom, having ruined his left arm completely in an accident with a machine, would not have left the marks on the right side of Mayelas face. He could not use his left arm.
Beatty has a talk with Montag saying that books are not good and that nothing is good about them. “At least one fireman gets an itch. What do the books say, he wonders. Oh, to scratch that itch, eh? Well Montag take my word for it, [he has] had to read a few in my time, to know what [fireman] was about, and the books say nothing...[he] come[s] away lost,” (Bradbury 66).
On top of pleading not guilty, he refused the advice of the attorney presented to him to plead insanity and blame it on black rage. The attorney tried to convince Ferguson that he would be likely to win if he plead not guilty on the basis of insanity and black rage which came from the suppression of African Americans in a white society. He refused to plead insanity and repeatedly told the court that he was sane- although he refused psychiatric analysis as well. He fired his attorney, shortly after he was granted him, and refused his right to be represented in the court of law, his right as an American citizen protected under the fourteenth amendment. This is what made this court case so interesting.
Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’. He reinforces McCarthyism by saying ‘get him before his kind gets us’. Later, he openly admits ‘I don’t give a goddamn about the law’. This evokes shock in the audience because of his disrespect for justice. This bitter diatribe leads to a narrative turning point when the 4th Juror angrily turns against his former ally and tells him to not open his ‘filthy mouth’ again.
Christina Smith PS 280 February 14 2013 McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S 479 (1985) Summary: In July of 1981 David Smith brought a libel suit against Robert McDonald. Smith claimed that McDonald wrote two petition letters to President Reagan, opposing Smith’s consideration for the position of United States Attorney. The letters contained false and slanderous material, Smith argued that McDonald knew the statements were false and had maliciously intended to injure his prospect of being appointed. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, Smith after the fact alleged that the letters did achieve their initial purpose, he was not appointed and his career and reputation were injured. McDonald on the grounds of the basis of diversity removed the case to Federal District Court, and argued that under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment "the right of the people .
In this case, at a post-trial hearing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Cunningham's victim was particularly vulnerable and that his conduct was violent, making him a danger to the community. The judge then concluded that this aggravating evidence outweighed the fact that Cunningham had no criminal history, and sentenced Cunningham to the high term of 16 years. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review because it had recently held, in People v. Black, that the DSL was constitutional under Blakely v. Washington. Cunningham asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do
In paragraph two, when Hanks talks about the change that he goes through and wondering if his wife will even recognize him, he uses a much more depressed state of parallelism. The big mystery that he is in almost plays as a two-faced role, separating his battle experiences from his personal life back home. In the same paragraph, there is also a small quantity of amplification. Hanks says,”But over here it’s a big, a big mystery.” This amplification amplifies the fact that what these men are going through is indeed a life-altering ordeal. When he is talking about his big mystery, he is referring to his dedication to the war.